1807738 (Refugee)

[2018] AATA 1439

1807738 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 1439 (12 April 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1807738

MEMBER:Jason Pennell

DATE:12 April 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

Statement made on 12 April 2018 at 11.27am

CATCHWORDS

Refugee – Protection Visa – Malaysia – Decision made on previous application –  No longer a reviewable decision – No Jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, s 65

CASES
Jayasinghe v MIEA (1997) 76 FCR 301
SZASP v MIAC [2007] FCA 771

SZBWJ v MIAC [2008] FMCA 164

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 9 March 2018 to refuse to grant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 21 March 2018. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction to review the decision.

3. An application for review of the same delegate’s decision was previously made to the Tribunal. The Tribunal made a decision on that application on 8 March 2018. Where the Tribunal has received a valid application for review of a reviewable decision and carried out its statutory duty to review the decision under the Act, the decision is no longer a reviewable decision[1] and the cases cited therein. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review a delegate’s decision twice.[2]

   [1] SZBWJ v MIAC [2008] FMCA 164 at [41]

   [2] Jayasinghe v MIEA (1997) 76 FCR 301 and SZASP v MIAC [2007] FCA 771

4. By a letter dated 26 March 2018 the Tribunal advised the applicant that she was seeking to review a decision that had previously been decided by the Tribunal. The Tribunal invited the applicant to make any comment, in writing, on whether a valid application had been made by 9 April 2018. The Tribunal has not received any correspondence in response to its letter.

5. As the delegate’s decision has already been the subject of a valid review by the Tribunal, it is no longer a reviewable decision. Accordingly, the Tribunal no longer has jurisdiction in relation to that decision.

   DECISION

6. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

   Jason Pennell
   Member